not a blind Destiny or estranged Monarch, "and it sufficeth us," for in his fatherhood we his children yet may trust.

Philip's prayer however, good as it was in principle, was warped by serious mistake. He erred for example in supposing that the Father whom no eye hath seen or can see could be shown in vision to human sight; while, if what he sought could have · been granted, it would not have afforded him the satisfaction he anticipated. A miraculous apocalypse may gratify the generation that seeketh after a sign; but it is only as the heart apprehends God that the rest for which we yearn can visit us. There was too this third fault in the Apostle's prayer; not only did he ask a vision which could not be given and which if given would have failed of its object, but he omitted to perceive that in Jesus, his Lord, he possessed already an adequate revelation of the Father. "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?"-words which seem to rebuke Philip for an absence of faith with which his brethren were not to the same degree chargeable. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" Our Lord's language had often sounded ambiguous; at times he had spoken of himself as separate from and subordinate to the Father, at times had claimed equal honours and oneness of nature with him; but the answer is now forthcoming; he leaves it to be understood that it is only in his self-imposed humiliation as

man's Redeemer that inferiority can be ascribed to him, and uses words which assert his inherent unity with the Father almost as clearly as when he said "I and my Father are one." Let it not be said that by this faith we dishonour the one and only true God by raising a distinct and therefore inferior being to his throne; for Christ is that one Eternal in his manward aspect, he is the mighty God and everlasting Father as alone that God and that Father can be revealed to our understandings; in seeing and receiving Jesus we believe, according to his own assurance to Philip, that we are beholding and receiving our very God.

But there remains to be noticed the pathos of that gentle remonstrance, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" The Apostle might have replied that it was but three years, and that he could not be expected in so brief a space to fathom all the depths of Christ's teaching; but we read of no attempted vindication on his part. It seems clear that the Saviour does not regard any length of time as necessary in order to our learning the central truths of his religion, and that he is grieved at the slowness of our spiritual apprehension. How long has he been with us and we professedly his daily pupils! Yet though the time may be nearer thirteen or thirty years than three, how imperfectly have we recognized his claims and understood his character! Let our ear be opened to his tender rebuke, which should tell more powerfully than wrathful threatening upon the backward disciple and the unsurrendered heart.

Here we part company with Philip. He may have been present at the appearance made by the risen Jesus to his disciples gathered beside the sea of Tiberias; he was certainly numbered among the apostles assembled in prayer in the interval between the ascension of the Lord and the promised descent. of the Comforter, his substitute. Tradition points out Hierapolis in Phrygia as the scene of his missionary labours and of his martyrdom, which latter is said to have taken the form of crucifixion added to stoning. There is however no legend that deserves to be lifted from its apocryphal obscurity or brought in to mar the simple picture painted for us in a few bold strokes by the evangelist. A man of slower intuition than some of his companions, he yet showed a frankness in questioning and a prompt zeal in leading friends and strangers to Christ which may warrant us in believing him to have been a valuable disciple. For a tardy understanding, serious drawback though it be, is best remedied by an outspoken admission of ignorance and prayer for enlightenment; while its removal will be soonest effected by a ready compliance in those matters already seen to form a part of duty, according to the promise which declares obedience to be "the organ of spiritual knowledge."

NOTE ON THE BETHSAIDAS.

Although the Palestine Exploration Fund has brought out a map of this district which claims to be "the only accurate map of the lake ever published" (Our Work, p. 183) it must not be supposed that the long-debated sites of Bethsaida and Capernaum have been definitely ascertained. Captain Wilson agrees with Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, pp. 360, 373) in placing the Galilean Bethsaida at Abu Zany close to the entrance of the Jordan (so that the two Bethsaidas would be divided only by the river), Capernaum at Tell Hum a place with considerable ruins two miles to the south-west, and Chorazin at Kerazeh, two and a half miles inland. Reference to a map will shew that according to this view none of the three is assigned to the Plain of Gennesareth. the northern extremity of this plain is Khan Minyeh, the traditional site of Capernaum, and accepted by Robinson. Dr. Tristram however (Land of Israel, pp. 439-444) follows De Saulcy in identifying Capernaum with Ain Mudawarah, in the centre of the plain, setting Chorazin at Tell Hum and Bethsaida between the two at Ain Tabiga. Mr. Grove reviews the evidence in The Dictionary of the Bible (vol. i.pe. 273 6) and is persuaded that the difficulty is insoluble.